saztak, either you misunderstood me, or i am miss understanding you..... either way, allow me to clarify, i am laughing at the poor description readily give by NASA classifying this as space junk..... now, i am definitely not an astronaut, and have only had one encounter with a "UFO" wayyyyyyyy back when, when i was a young child, but i find it hard to classify something as space junk/debris, when in one of the pictures it appears there is some type of propulsion device illuminated.... trust me, i am not one of the sheeples, or debunkers..... i was LMAO at NASA, definitely not making light of anyone posting in this thread..... sorry for the confusion, or heck, maybe i am confused at this moment, i have been up for 24 straight, stuck out in a plant because of some idiots i have working for me, and see no relief in sight for probably another 15 - 18..... anyway, complete apologies if my statement was misunderstood.... want some coffee????
saztak wrote:
I'm very disappointed with you whymel. For one, it's hard to tell what exactly it is from the pictures, and it's a very poor decision to assume that NASA wouldn't lie about something like that. Seriously, come on. I can see it either way, and it's in poor taste to laugh at someone for saying what they said.
Plus, if it is space 'junk', then what is it exactly? An old satellite? To assume that 'space junk' would look like that, just because NASA labels it as such, is just letting the powers that be continue to control your point of view.
To assume it's nothing kills your own curiosity. And if it weren't for your curiosity, you wouldn't be conscious. I hope you won't so easily disregard your desire to know more by just believing what others tell you in the future.
Everyone else, thanks for the links. It's always fun to look at ufo pics.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Char 
